Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1998 Week 1 Hansard (29 April) . . Page.. 126 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

A number of issues that were raised in this debate I would like to address. Mr Moore said that it is not a good enough argument that, because you are on the waiting list longest, you therefore have a right to a position. My understanding of that is that, in fact, these people did believe that they were going to have a place - and that would probably be to do with the false hopes part of Mr Kendrick's comment that these people also were in nursing homes already for a period of time. So, the criterion was more about the length of time. Because these people have been in nursing homes, there are obviously more people now who are eligible, because this process has been so messy and delayed. So, there really seems to be a lot more around that than just being longest on the waiting list, Mr Moore.

The question of the brokerage is also interesting. I notice that Mr Quinlan interjected about that. I would be very interested to know what experience that firm actually had in support services and accommodation, particularly support services for people. If they said that they have walked out because of the acrimony between the different parties, that may well be because they did not have an understanding. It requires experience, and it is actually an ongoing process of understanding how to do it. Mr Humphries's language also was "on both sides of the fence". It was all about division and sides: If this firm had walked out because of division, then they obviously did not take responsibility. I would like to know whether they did.

I would like to know exactly how they set up a group for the input, because I understand that there was an implementation advisory committee which was disbanded. I understand that the housing members committees are still in existence; but I will remind members that our Assembly inquiry here was very clear on the importance of separating the accommodation service from the support service for people. It is a really critical issue of empowerment of residents. So, if there is actually only a group - and this is my understanding - and the real opportunity for discussion is based around the Havelock House accommodation area, the waters are definitely getting muddied.

There is agreement all over Australia, basically, in the sector that that is not useful. Of course, there is some overlap. For example, in a house you may have a problem because a resident has a problem with someone else's carer. That would be a case where the actual accommodation service has to be brought into a support issue. So, I am not saying that it is always totally easy to separate them; but we certainly do need to be able to see that there has been a real understanding of the importance of structuring in the practices for everyone involved to have input - particularly, of course, the people who are living in the houses.

They are the main points I want to make about this issue this morning. I will repeat that probably the overriding concern I have, apart from the terrible process that has occurred and the fact that these individuals have been so adversely affected, and what I am really interested to see - and Mr Moore said that he wants to see the empowerment of residents - is a framework put in place which is evaluated. I am hearing that that has not been done well; that there has not been a willingness to really listen to what the

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .